gmo wheat escapes - warning labels in eu

silversword(9A)May 31, 2013

Two things:

1. GMO wheat escaped the test fields and has been found growing in Eastern Oregon by a farmer who then notified OSU, which told the FDA. This is of concern because it's the same strain that Monsanto planted a decade ago as an "experiment", an experiment that ended in 2005 after failing to get approval for growing in the US.

Since we export around half of our wheat, and other countries don't want GMO in their food this could have some pretty dire consequences for the industry, especially in Oregon where 90% of wheat grown is exported.

Also of concern is that it wasn't approved, it's not safe, and it's replicating and growing out there. What will this do to wheat as a source of food for Americans?

2. Kraft has to label their mac-cheese in EU with the following warnings:

"This product may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children."

So where did KRAFT get their wheat? Who is growing GMO wheat? Or if no one is, are they just having to label it because our soil is considered to be GMO after all the GMO crops that have been grown in it? People forget the soil is a living thing...the whole business astonishes me!

I heard that on the television that is kept on low at my physical therapy clinic.

My physical therapist (while digging in a hot poker disguised as her fingers, all in order to relax a knotted muscle around the sciatic nerve) heard that report and commented that Monsanto is evil. I gasped through the pain that I completely agreed.
I kept it to myself that IMO, at the time I thought she was evil too. ;)

Since my femoral hernia repair surgery in November, I have had problems with digestion (malabsorption) - after eating my gut tells me it's having difficulties. The first two weeks in France, I ate everything and my gut didn't tell me one little word. Then, I started eating some dairy products and took lactase pills, but the lactose intolerance seemed to have started the malabsorption problems again. I was crediting the more "pure" food that is sold in France (plus its wonderful bread) with my lack of problems.

If I was fluent in French, I'd move there in a heartbeat - for the wonderful food and the health care.

It just occurred to me yesterday, that the French don't sell packaged bread. All the markets, from little grocers to supermarkets sell freshly-baked bread and the French buy bread twice a day - morning and after work (because the morning bread is, to them, too stale to eat in the evening). Every village has its own bakery or a bakery truck comes around to those living outside of town. And, bakeries are open on Sunday morning, or at least one is if it is a small town.

How I wish I could buy a baguette in my supermarket, baked that morning, for the equivalent of 85 Euros (about $1.15). Without GMOs. Or buy any food without having to read the label to see if there are GMOs or other nasty stuff in it. (In France, I would have to read some labels to see if it contained dairy products, but that was it.)

Jodi, all I can think of is follow the money. Also, America hasn't have famines like the rest of the world has. The worst we've experienced since landing on the rock and not knowing how to farm is the Depression.

Ireland had that little issue with their potato crop... We think we're immune. And dare I say, Manifest Destiny?

Wheat is not an outcrosser and will self-pollinate. Still, feral wheat popping up in a field of seeded wheat can contaminate the crop because it is harvested with the feral seed heads. There is also the remote chance that in a population of a million wheat spikes and a hundred gmo-feral wheat plants, some pollen migration can be expected to occur, thus replicating the gmo traits in another variety of wheat seed.

I forgot to mention another likely source of "contamination", one feared by organic farmers share transport, storage and packing with conventionally grown crops. Cleaning of harvesting, shipping and storage facilities are sloppy enough to allow contaminants to build up. All it takes is a few grains to contaminate a field with altered genetics. The Oregon trials went on for a few years, meaning that the harvested test grains were harvested and stored between seasons.

What could go wrong?

Some years ago I listened to a representative of a biotech company answering the question "How do we keep your products out of our fields and product lines?" His long and short of it answer, so to speak, was you can try but the genetic changes are already in the environment. IOW, no way to get the genetic genie back in the glass.

Which is why it takes a special kind of responsibility to mess with genetics, in my opinion. To monopolize or for profit just don't fit into the parameters of what I'd call "responsibility" within the industry. Especially before they know the outcome health wise.... or maybe, in spite of what they know, eh... shame on them.

I think people bandy about the term, "genetically modified" when that is a nebulous term, depending on who's talking--experts, scientists, growers, laymen, or consumers.

My understanding that a crop is not technically "genetically modified" until it's DNA is altered.

One of the articles linked in the OP states that most of the corn and soybeans in this country are already genetically modified.

Why the uproar over the wheat and not corn or soybeans?

Someone started a thread about Wheatbelly last year; to me, that topic of wheat's effect on the body is worth going back and revisiting.

I am grateful to grow much of my own food in my garden. Of course I can't be sure exactly what happened to the seeds prior to my custody of them; I planted peppers purchased from the Evil Walmart garden section so of course one of them is probably Audrey II in waiting. At least they won't have wax or shigella on them.

It will be interesting to see if this genie is shoved back in the bottle--for wheat it may be, but I don't see anyone rioting to going back to non genetically modified corn or soybeans.

Demi, when activists and scientists argue about genetic engineering or altering, the focus is not so much on the techniques used as much as the transfer of genetic material from one species to a totally unrelated species (horizontal gene transfer).

There are many kinds of such transfers possible depending upon the aim of the breeding. Nearly all plant transfers involve introducing resistance to herbicides, insects, diseases, or environmental extremes. Most involve attenuated viral material to "infect" the new plant variety, often cauliflower mosaic virus or some other normally highly infective material.

What bothers me the most is that while techniques have become more refined and precise, each transfer involves junk base pairs riding along, meaning that often the new plot of transgenic plants mostly fail. Even when the "right" DNA protein packet is transferred, success involves transcriptor codes (RNA) to tell the DNA how to behave. The idea that a single set of DNA will yield one kind of protein for one kind of purpose has proven to be wrong. Genes exist in an ecological system, not as independent players.

I won't try to explain what can go wrong as far as human and animal health following long-term consumption of such products, much less environmental effects.

Thanks, Marshall, for your input. The "junk base" pairs is something I've not heard of, and this is an interesting subject.

"Even when the "right" DNA protein packet is transferred, success involves transcriptor codes (RNA) to tell the DNA how to behave. The idea that a single set of DNA will yield one kind of protein for one kind of purpose has proven to be wrong. Genes exist in an ecological system, not as independent players."

So, the problems result in the inability to separate from the DNA only that feature that one intends, because the RNA is part of the DNA and the RNA injects it's own proteins?

Tinkering with nature is fraught with dangers, eh?

My younger daughter writes a science blog and regularly selects topics on genetics. I will pass this topic on to her; perhaps she will write a blog post on this particular topic.

Yes, I believe it is fraught with dangers... and one only has to know the basics to understand that much.

When we breed for specific traits, we tend to not notice sometimes how the "total package" deteriorates in other areas. Always good to keep one's eye on the ball... and I don't think Monsanto's "ball" is in the best interests of humanity.

Are people really "gluten intolerant" or are they "GMO intolerant?"
We probably will never find out as medicine is based on controlled studies. I would be willing to bet (a lot of money) that they are trying to create a gluten tolerance medication for Celiacs and non-Celiac gluten tolerant people than finding out if it is the modification or gluten/protein content alone (for the NCGT people, of course Celiacs we know it is the gluten).
I control my AI conditions through diet. I can have certain strains of potatoes, corn and tomatoes. I am guessing it is the modification of these products because it is just too weird. I also eliminate highly modified foods - wheat, canola, soy, dairy (intolerance) and eat lower carb in general.
LOL, Monsanto - they don't even trust their product 100%."So long as the introduced protein is determined safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks. Further, it is impossible to design a long-term safety test in humans, which would require, for example, intake of large amounts of a particular GM product over a very large portion of the human life span. There is simply no practical way to learn anything via human studies of whole foods. This is why no existing food--conventional or GM--or food ingredient/additive has been subjected to this type of testing." monsanto.com.
The thing about having this product around, people are careless and greedy or they just make mistakes. One can easily bring it overseas (or anywhere) and say it is non-GMO and use it in farming practice or mistakes will be made and a wrong shipment is sent. I bet ground corn from Mexico (if you can get it is pretty safe). They have approved a trial run (GM corn) but overall aren't interested (the farmers) in bringing it into their country (bad move, IMO). There is too much at risk for them. They have hundreds of varieties that they have bred over generations.

Sorry, Cookie, but the great scandal in Mexico is the widespread bootlegging of gringo gmo maize to the horror of traditional farmers and their communities. That genie is out of the bottle and in the fields of maize already. Locals are selecting for the genetic traits introduced by the gene jockeys north of the border.

Corn pollen travels many miles. Nearly impossible to keep non-gmo corn from being cross-pollinated by such gm pollen.

Shame. I should have known better as I just wrote that in my last entry. "The thing about having this product around, people are careless and greedy or they just make mistakes." Emphasis on greedy on that one. Any good links on that - especially on when and where it started? I really do love the subject matter.

Yes, but later. I'm off to the farm to harvest squash; otherwise I have to find homes for the lunkers that will be there on Monday.
Google link below to start you out. We had lots of threads on the subject several years ago

Bye bye wheat exports. What a tragedy. It'll be interesting to see if any more is found since so many places will be testing.

"I don't see anyone rioting to going back to non genetically modified corn or soybeans."

Demi, maybe not full scale riots, but just last weekend people all across the world marched against Monsanto.

On Saturday, protestors in dozens of countries took to the streets to Ã¢ÂÂMarch against Monsanto.Ã¢ÂÂ The coordinated day of action against genetic engineering and reprehensible business practices by the Missouri-based company came just two days after the Senate rejected a bid by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to ensure that his state and others are free to mandate labels on transgenic foods.

"WASHINGTON, May 30, 2013 Ã¢ÂÂ A recent study by Canadian researchers reveals genetically engineered (GE) salmon can breed with wild trout, creating a hybrid fish that may pose a serious environmental threat. As AquaBountyÃ¢ÂÂs AquAdvantage GE salmon approaches Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, many activists and consumers are pressing for more research.

AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon is engineered with an added gene from Pacific salmon to make it grow faster, and an added gene from an eel to make it grow throughout the year. Currently AquAdvantage eggs are created on Prince Edward Island, Canada, and the fish are grown and farmed in a facility in Panama.

Working for over 17 years to obtain FDA approval, AquAdvantage creator, Massachusetts-based AquaBounty, is currently in the final stages of the lengthy New Animal Drug Application (NADA) required by FDA. The second comment session for the Draft Environmental Assessment received over two million comments from concerned consumers and organizations.

The Canadian study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, found that GE salmon can successfully breed with the closely related wild brown trout (Salmo trutta) to form a hybrid fish, as well as pass along the transgenes to hybrid offspring. Of the 363 hybrid offspring initially examined by researchers, nearly 40 percent carried modified genes.

Further, the study found that the hybrid fish that carried transgenes grew faster than non-GE wild salmon, trout, and the hybrids that did not carry the transgenes. These transgene hybrids were also found to outcompete wild salmon and even GE salmon in simulated stream conditions.

The study sheds light on various problems with FDAÃ¢ÂÂs Environmental Assessment and its analysis of the environmental risks associated with GE salmon.

snip end quote"

So a few escape from the cages, or the raceways get flooded,.... It can never happen, amirite?

Cookie, this little article introduces most of the controversies involved with the gene giants trying to introduce gm maize into the motherland of maize, going so far to discredit researchers, published scientific evidence and even threatening to withdraw funding from UCalBerkeley which has become a major center of biotech research.

New Study Finds GM Genes in Wild Mexican Maize
February 27th, 2009

posted on Soyatech
New Scientist

Now itÃ¢ÂÂs official: genes from genetically modified corn have escaped into wild varieties in rural Mexico. A new study resolves a long-running controversy over the spread of GM genes and suggests that detecting such escapes may be tougher than previously thought.

In 2001, when biologists David Quist and Ignacio Chapela reported finding transgenes from GM corn in traditional varieties in Oaxaca, Mexico, they faced a barrage of criticism over their techniques. Nature, which had published the research, eventually disowned their paper, while a second study by different researchers failed to back up their findings.

But now, Elena Alvarez-Buylla of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City and her team have backed Quist and ChapelaÃ¢ÂÂs claim. They found transgenes in about 1 per cent of nearly 2000 samples they took from the region (Molecular Ecology , vol 18, p 750).

Ã¢ÂÂThey are out there, but itÃ¢ÂÂs hit-and-miss,Ã¢ÂÂ says Paul Gepts of the University of California, Davis, a co-author of the new study. The escaped transgenes are common in a few fields and absent in others, he
says, so gene-monitoring efforts must sample as broadly as possible.

WhatÃ¢ÂÂs more, not every detection method Ã¯Â¿Â½" or laboratory Ã¯Â¿Â½" identified every sample containing transgenes. Monitors should use many methods to avoid false negatives, says Gepts."

--------------

Dow is the transnational that has been trying to elbow into the large maize market south of the border.

In Europe it seems to pop up every few years with illegal seed being planted by farmers.

There's a growing black market for these seeds in order for farmers to cut costs. Most of these farmers are just using it for animal feed in order to avoid detection (if it's even tested, which in some areas it's not) at grain silos. That doesn't help the pollen spread issue.

It's usually "found out" when a neighboring farmer's crops test positive or they find a farmer doing "weird" things with their fields such as no-till corn farming in an area where that's rarely done because of weed pressure (a dead give-away).

Another issue thats has popped up in the past is the food aid to Africa, where GM maize is donated by the US, usually over the howling protests of the local ag departments, and finds its way into the fields of the peasant farmers - it doesn't necessarily grow well, depending on the latitude/day length, but the genes are out there.

And as Europe doesn't want GM sweet corn in their markets, this seriously damages the export markets.

But these days, thats all out the window, South Africa is growing GM maize, as are many other countries. I Don't know the status of patents and if they go after some starving peasant planting some saved seed on his half acre.

Thanks for the link, Marshallz10.
I do worry for those countries that have a long lineage of (insert crop) and to have it cross contaminated. It's pretty difficult to have crops co-exist without cross contamination.
I wonder if they have the "patent police" out in countries where there is a ban on GMO's. I am sure the neighbouring farms take care of that.

"I wonder if they have the "patent police" out in countries where there is a ban on GMO's."

They do, but it's more to eradicate and seek smuggling sources rather than seek monetary damages...well, for end-user farmers, that is. If they're the source of the illegal seed smuggling they're going to try to nail them.

If it's in a banned country, it's illegal seed, usually smuggled in, and many times (especially out of Indian suppliers) illegally gathered from the seeds of their GMO crops.

There's a big issue with these illegal suppliers and quality control, too...especially in India. This black market GMO seed falls into a couple of major categories "real/fake" and "fake/fake." The "real/fake" seed supply can be spotty and somewhat non-effective with the desired traits and the "fake/fake" can be a crop-loss disaster because there's little-to-no trait passed in the seed. This is leading to a lot more farmer headaches than corporate headaches in these areas.

The last thing the major GMO corporations need is some rouge farmer out there planting improper/banned GMO strains creating bad press and regulatory nightmares as a result. It would help if there were harsher smuggling laws for plant material...but it's lax all over the world, even the United States.

Our current outbreak of citrus "greening disease" in the US can be traced back to Asian church communities in California sharing cuttings from their home lands that shouldn't have been allowed to pass through their borders or into our borders through the mail...then shared all over the US. It's hitting California, Texas, and Florida quite hard. It's an epic disaster to established orchards with absolutely no way to take care of it without establishing new orchards and severe thrip control after the fact. It doesn't help that since this is so costly that people with greening disease are waiting until their diseased trees are in economic loss decline levels until taking the step to replace orchards...in the mean time the disease stews in areas.

Fwiw, conventional and GMO breeding to address this issue are being explored. This is considered way more of a problem and danger than the Papaya Ringspot virus, which prompted a GMO papaya to be developed (and is in use in many countries).

One thing I'd really like people to open their eyes to...well, those that aren't totally opposed to it at all...is GMO breeding for pesticide/herbicide tolerance/expression vs GMO breeding for disease/nutrient/bad-soil-condition tolerance.

I think some that may be opposed to GMO breeding for herbicide/pesticide tolerance/expression might be open to GMO breeding for disease/nutrient/bad-soil-condition tolerance.

Some diseases (especially viruses) are extremely hard to impossible to prevent or take care of. Not all areas can afford or have access to cheap liming materials (which takes tons per acre) and aluminum tolerant crops would be very beneficial.

Just something to think about before lumping all GMO into a single basket of evil...for those that choose to draw a line at all.

Do you mean the disease called Huanglongbing, or citrus greening disease, which is spread by an insect called the Asian citrus psyllid rather than by thrips? We have outbreaks in LA, Ventura and SBarbara Cos. and in the Central Valley. So far our lemons and other citrus seem unaffected. On Thursday, I spoke with a Cal. State monitor who was replacing the range of trapping devices on our three orchard sections. She asked if she might install a permanent monitoring station specifically to attract and trap the psyllid. I agreed because the neighbors had refused.

Yeah, Huanglongbing....and yes, they're more spread by way more by psyllids than thrips...brainfart. I've had my mind wrapped about other pest controls in crops lately given my area/research.

It's a ravaging disease with nothing close to an effective control aside from replacement of trees and control of psyllids to keep it from spreading.

One major issue is orchards just cannot afford to bulk-replace entire orchards all at once and are waiting until the economic loss is too great to ignore. Since it's not happening "all at once" it's expected to keep the disease around for quite a while...and it's currently on an increase rather than the ebb-flow high/low point of it's expected disease curve.

They've tried so many things for so many years in so many other areas of the world...and everything new they throw at it is rather ineffective. In Brazil it took a mass-orchard replacement scheme subsidized by the government in order to bring it under control.

Yes, there is real fear among citrus producers around here. There seems to be at least two populations genetically different enough that one (African?) always is a vector for the disease while the other (Asian) is less of a vector. But that might relate to the exposure while feeding to the disease.

A trap with one psyllid is met with quick removal of the orchard block (or neighborhood citrus) and a rigorous round of pesticide applications. So, while evidence that the insect is widespread, there isn't yet full invasion of many orchards.

Most of those studies about "gut problems/diseases/etc" are being bastardized by bad activist information dispersal...mostly because most of those studies are about RoundUp being ingested directly (in animals), not eating GMO grains.

There's also the fiercely debated paper by Cichosz/Wiackowski out of Poland that some people like to tie their horse to on the subject of human gut GMO interactions. It's a rather alarmist paper that doesn't have too many medical community fans. The basis of it blames BT ingestion causing gut issues and RoundUp in GMOs causing cancer and spiking estrogen levels. It's a bit of a weird paper that's become quite popular with some activists and quite eye-rolling to critics of the paper.

Btw, that Cichosz/Wiackowski paper cites absolutely 0 human case studies...it's based on assumptions on what could happen in humans based on other people's papers on animals. That's the major hole in it for most critics...along with the fact no original research was done for the paper. Legit research can be done based on aggregating other people's research, but one has to be very careful about drawing conclusions based on them that aren't directly or at least very closely linked by that aggregated research.

Yes, I have but the only research that has been published (or sometimes suppressed) has been done with rodents and other animals. More interesting are some of the reported feeding trials where the animals were given choices between gmo cultivar and one not altered. Often the animals would leave the gmo feed alone until the other feed was eaten or withdrawn.

European farmers and feeding centers are supposedly unhappy with their animals' response to a high gmo feed ration. Gmo soy feed was found to be associated in the US midwest with sow infertility and other gestation problems. Seems the soya was prone to develop a specific fungus normally suppressed by other cultivars of soya.

But, because of biotech's resistance to allowing its patented products to be tested independently, we don't have much solid and replicated data to draw firm conclusions.

Biotech products are tested independently quite often. Research organizations outside of industry even have access to what genetic insertions are being made, markers, and delivery mechanisms. They rarely get this information for "pipeline/development" traits that aren't out in the wild, but corporate/university/government research sharing of this kind of information is quite common for approved product in the marketplace.

I work in this field, btw.

With the sheer amount of animals being brought to market and the huge importance of cows actually giving birth (many $100s on the line per calf) there would be a lot more specialized non-GMO demand for food if there was a huge concern about GMO feed being noticeably detrimental to getting those calves produced...at least for pregnant/birth-ready cows, if nothing else.

Btw, the sharing of this information is easily done because it is extremely easy (mostly thanks to markers) to know if someone has "stolen" any intellectual property for use in their own brand of GMO. Other companies can do it..but they better develop their own way of doing it, prepare to get a license from the developer to include it, or prepare to get sued.

"Has anyone heard of the connection between gut diseases coming to prevalence at the same time as GMO..?"
I have and I believe it. There are no long term studies on this matter so no one really knows. As far as gut health goes, there is something there. I was on a few medications (harsh ones) for my AI conditions and when I started to react to one of them my Rheumatologist suggested the next one and because I think of myself as relatively young and that I have already been on medications for so long I got scared. I took the prescription (didn't fill it) but I also looked into Naturopathy. I researched as much as I could - others who are going the same route - and it all came down to the same thing - a compromised gut. I was skeptical and had a very, very difficult time for the first year because as we are all individuals and react differently to foods, external factors - everything, it was hard. I ended up doing a hardcore elimination diet and tried many therapies (not sure if that is the word I am looking for) and here I am two years later off all my medications. My blood work has all balanced out and have no markers for any previous conditions. I do have a good Rheumatologist, and although he is not recommending this to me, he is accepting and encouraging to keep up what I am doing. We do yearly blood work to make sure everything is good. I have a very controlled diet and love it.
I am very suspicious of our food system and angry that so much of it passes as "food". And yes, I always ate healthy before hand because my immune system was so compromised.

A spokeswoman for Monsanto Germany, Ursula Luttmer-Ouazane, admitted that Monsanto recognizes that GMO crops were currently not embraced on the European market.

"We've understood that such plants don't have any broad acceptance in European societies," Luttmer-Ouazane said. Ã¢ÂÂIt is counterproductive to fight against windmills," she added.

A spokesperson for the German Ministry of Economy and Technologies described the move as an Ã¢ÂÂentrepreneurial decisionÃ¢ÂÂ which needed no further comment. The ministry added, however, it has long made its opposition to gene modification technologies known.

"The promises of the GM industry have not come true for European agriculture, nor have they for the agriculture in developing and emerging economies," the ministry said in a statement.

The EU will be testing incoming wheat and rejecting any contaminated shipments. It's so good to know the BigSix can't continue their dirty politics to force contaminated food onto people anywhere they want.

Our NC biotechnologist has left us after posting the party line about how well studied and vetted gmos are and how free are researchers to use any and all gmo materials and techniques in their independent research. Luckily Monsanto and the other holders of patents are so generous and open to independent published research on real and potential problems reported by less rigorous sources.

David, thanks for another source ( a ton of reading).
My tiller is down and I won't be planting corn or okra this year - normally staples that the whole family comes to pick. I was in a grocery yesterday and the stocker was filling a bin with pretty sweet corn. The only thing he could tell me about it was that it was grown in Florida. I asked about if it could be GM and he looked at me like I was a Martian. He didn't know. It was too pretty: my sweet corn has always featured a few fat and healthy corn earworms at the top of every ear. This had to be sprayed with something I didn't want in my body so I passed it by.